Posted:17th Aug 2005ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? /end vent

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

1) I believe that science can explain everything about this world, and that there is nothing outside or 'above' the laws of science. Therefor science is something I believe in even though there is no proof that this is the case (because you cannot disprove a negative). In that way, it is a religion.

I would say that *your* belief in science is _similar_ to a religious belief. But that science itself is not a religion, nor does it really resemble one.

science will try to explain everything but it's also accepted that there are somethings that are unknowable. What happened before th big bang for instance. It might try and find them out, but I doubt it'll ever definitively state: this *is* the case.

But on the plus side, you can also fall back on faith and beat up the religious types! Result!

"the now legendary" - Kaskade"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Posted:8th Nov 2006Interesting thread! I would define myself as an agnostic, based on the fact I don't think I'm qualified to say whether there is a god or not (Stout's Apathetic Agnosticism). I don't believe there is a god, or at least not in the religious sense of the word, but I wouldn't say I'm agnostic based on belief. I'd say this position is consistent with the scientific approach, in that I take the non-existence of god as fact based on no empirical evidence and no convinving arguments that I've ever heard in favour of a god.

However, I also accept that there are things outside my range of comprehension and experience, and it's possible that a god (if he did exist) would fit into this category. I don't believe that's the case, but I'm not qualified to say that for certain, which is the position that Athiests take. That kind of thinking is more consistent with the religious position, of "I believe this to be the case, even though there is no proof it's true". Ultimately, the existence of God is unknowable, until Science proves one way or the other.

The day someone comes up with a mathematical proof that god does or doesn't exist will be the day I become an Atheist or a believer in God.

With regards creationists, and ID in particular, I have MAJOR issues with ID masquerading as science. It's not. It's not even a theory, it has no testable hypothesis and it's central arguments don't even contradict evolution, which I completely believe in. Creationists I have less objection to. If they want to believe something completely irrational I feel sorry for their narrow viewpoint.

I noticed Patriarch also was pushing his anti-evolution stance on the global Brain thread, which was fundamentally about evolution and complexity theory (something ALL creationists should check out), but I dislike arguing the point with people like that because they always fall back on theology, which has no place in scientific debate, let alone the classroom as ID proponents want.

Posted:8th Nov 2006I used to be an apathetic agnostic, but over the years I just amassed enough doubts about the existence of God to take the plunge into atheism, but if my atheism is going to be thought of as a faith based view, then I have no problems backpedaling.

I figure that ultimately, the NONexistance of God is unknowable simply because there are religious types who'll claim that their own direct experiences with God are all the proof they need to accept that God exists.

I'd need to see God showing up on the 6 oclock news performing miracles, like causing the disappearance of every handgun on the planet, before I could be convinced. If God started talking to me personally, I'd question my sanity. But that's just me

Religion too has it's share of "things we're not supposed to understand" Take the Christian idea of Trinity. We have. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. Now, the Father and Son, I can understand that, but just how does the Holy Ghost fit in to the picture?

Sambo Flux, one thing I found impressive about Patriarch 917 ( and still do ) is that he never fell back on theology in when defending his positions, that's one of the things ( IMO ) that make this a truly great thread. I sure wish he's been able to pull off what he was trying over on the Global Brain Theory thread...but maybe it was too obvious a trap.

Posted:8th Nov 2006Having reread most of this thread properly, I agree. Patriarch917 seems not to be disputing that evolution happens, more that by itself is an inadequate explananation for the origin of life. This was the argument he was pushing on the Global Brain thread if I recall, that evolution and selection by themselves would not generate life (or consciousness in the Global Brain case).

In fact, this is a position that I agree with. It's not an adequate explanation by itself, and I think Patriarch made some good points illustrating that.

Where Patriacrch and I differ however, is that he explains this away via his creationism, and in the process completely overlooks what I would consider to be the correct explanation: the principles of self-organisation and emergence. In particular, Stuart Kaufmann's work on autocatalytic sets, it's by far the most convincing explanation for the origins of life I've ever seen, best explained in his book At Home in the Universe. In fact, Ben mentioned Cellular automata in his very first post, part of the same idea.

Everybody seems to view evolution as the only theory about life, and while is IS correct, I don't think it's the whole story. I don't agree with Patriarchs viewpoint, and CERTAINLY not ID as science, but I also think people on both side of the debate can be blinkered as well.

Posted:8th Nov 2006People are right to question evolution and there are still gaps in our knowlage about it. i just find it furstrateing/baffling that people seem to use the arguement point A can't be totaly explained by evolution there for by proccess of elimination god did it?? appart from the problem of which god was it thor, neptune, jesus the flying spagety monster. that logical leep starts from the fact there entire world view is baised on the principle that they are absolutly 100% right. thats why they NEVER argue a case for god creating the world i've tryed on several occasions to get people to do this they only ever argue AGAINST evolution. because in there minds he definatly exists if you ever ask a IDist to explain the evidence and make a case for ID without mentioniting evolution or the bible there totaly stumped yet that doesn't seem to bother themEDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1162982701)

Posted:9th Nov 2006Yeah, i've had some REAL frustrating conversations with religious people. The fundamental flaw in any belief system is the belief that that view is absolutely unarguably unequivocably right.

That said, one of my best mates is training to be a priest, and I've had some wicked conversations with him. But then he listens to other peoples viewpoints and comes up with counter-arguments, which is fine. It's people who go "if it's not in the bible it's not true, and I'm not listening, la la la" that does my head in.

And ID is especiialy annoying because it masquerades as science when it isn't. It's an insipid attack on evolution from religious fundamentalists who think they're right and everybody else is wrong, and want to force it down peoples throats, nothing more. They use so-called legitimate scientists like Michael Behe to legitimise their cause, and have a raft of "scientific" backup, like the old irreducible complexity argument that always gets wheeled out. Which sounds convincing to the layman, but is absolute garbage scientifically, and can easlily be disproved.

Posted:9th Nov 2006 Yeah, I agree! Discussing belief is always good, as long as it's two way! Talking to someone (religious, non-religious, it matters not) who is only interested in making you agree with them is soooo irritating.

A good discussion should be about furthering your own knowledge by taking into account the viewpoints of others, and adapting (or evolving, hehe) your own arguments in response, just as the other person in the debate should. Debating with someone who won't budge an inch even when faced with an argument that obliterates their own, because they're so convinced they're right, is pointless. And I've met a few of those, on both sides of the debate.

i'm confused - how the hell do you get youtube to host a 22 minute video without being a 'director' member and on top of that, its of a tv show that's only just been broadcast on an american network?!

youtube seem to be immune to copyright

ontopic:

i too think there is a subtle difference between "i know" and "i believe" and it is this:

i think that creationists, like those who subscribe to i.d., generally site their opinions as beliefs and imo, when we are referring to religious beliefs, those beliefs are absolute and thus saying "i believe" is the same as saying "i know" but with an added qualifier, that being: "i don't know how/why i know, but i know".

the difference between "we think x happened" and we believe x happened" is that the belief (in the religious sense of the word) cannot and should not ever be challenged (when it is, it is said that the person's faith is wavering) whereas the thought can be, and is encouraged to be, challenged.

belief in this context must be absolute and should require no qualification.

and that would be absolutely fine, if it were not one of the primary aims of the believers to spread their belief to others.

there is much less of an impetus to push one's support for a scientific idea/theory:scientists say "we've had this idea. we're going to test it to see if it might be right. anyone is welcome to come up with a different idea and, if that idea fits the evidence better than our idea, we may well end up supporting your idea instead".

i agree that some scientists treat their theories as one would their religious faith, in terms of defending the 'truth' of it to the hilt and attempting to spread support for it to others.but one person believing in a theory does not make the practice of belief and the spreading of it implicit in science, whereas it clearly is implicit in christianity.

cole. x

"i see you at 'dis cafe.i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.they do porridge."- tim westwood

i'm confused - how the hell do you get youtube to host a 22 minute video without being a 'director' member and on top of that, its of a tv show that's only just been broadcast on an american network?!

youtube seem to be immune to copyright

They aren't immune, but until someone sends a cease and desist to them, they won't take things down.

The BBC f'rinstance (the bbc guy from backstage.bbc.co.uk was saying) know about the bbc programs on youtube, but they don't ask them to be taken down because they act as free marketing / samples in effect getting people to the bbc site looking for more / information. Or getting them to buy the full programs on DVD.

"the now legendary" - Kaskade"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Posted:9th Nov 2006isn't the point of a scientific theory to have people agree on it and build on it with other theories because they think that the premise is correctthis seems to be an implicit hope of spreading the idea

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

also thought up something another intresting i realised at least 3 billion on the planet are Delusional and whats more i can prove it

Faith: 1. The belief that something is true, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

2. The proposition that something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it.

Delusions:A false belief that is firmly held despite logical and confirming evidence to the contrary.

As you can see the diffrence between faith and delusion is essentaly wether you are correct or not if your correct is faith if your wrong its a delusion.

As we know religions are mutaly exclusive if one is right the rest are wrong they can't all be right.

so to get our minimum figure for the number of delusional people we simply assume that the religon with the most members is right this is currently christianity so we add the number of christants to the number of atheists (they never had faith in the first place) 33% of people are christian + 16% atheists(who are wrong but not delusional this of course doesn't take into acount the mentaly ill atheists and christans who actualy are delusional about something )

so that gives us 49% of 6 billion people which gives us 3 billion as a minimun number for delusional people

so no matter whos right or wrong about the whole god thing at least half of the worlds population is delusional EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1163091845)

Posted:16th Nov 2006Great post robnunchucks, and your analysis could be used to explain the majority of general weirdness that drives most conflicts.

OK, so I was wrong to equate knowledge and faith in the way I did , and as Coleman so eloquently pointed out. It's not that I didn't believe him, it's just that I was thinking along the lines of trust when I made the comparison.

The statement that threw me was "subtle differences" and the more I looked into this issue, the more I found that the differences weren't that subtle after all.

Posted:17th Nov 2006Jeepers!! Thought I better back that up with a couple of quotes or something there....

Written by: Dalai Lama

We also need to renew our commitment to human values in the field of modern science. Though the main purpose of science is to learn more about reality, another of its goals is to improve the quality of life. Without altruistic motivation, scientists cannot distinguish between beneficial technologies and the merely expedient. The environmental damage surrounding us is the most obvious example of the result of this confusion, but proper motivation may be even more relevant in governing how we handle the extraordinary new array of biological techniques with which we can now manipulate the subtle structures of life itself. If we do not base our every action on an ethical foundation, we run the risk of inflicting terrible harm on the delicate matrix of life.

Nor are the religions of the world exempt from this responsibility The purpose of religion is not to build beautiful churches or temples, but to cultivate positive human qualities such as tolerance generosity and love. Every world religion, no matter what its philosophical view, is founded first and foremost on the precept that we must reduce our selfishness and serve others. Unfortunately, sometimes religion itself causes more quarrels than it solves. Practitioners of different faiths should realize that each religious tradition has immense intrinsic value and the means for providing mental and spiritual health. One religion, like a single type of food, cannot satisfy everybody. According to their varying mental dispositions, some people benefit from one kind of teaching, others from another. Each faith has the ability to produce fine, warmhearted people and despite their espousal of often contradictory philosophies, all religions have succeeded in doing so. Thus there is no reason to engage in divisive religious bigotry and intolerance, and every reason to cherish and respect all forms of spiritual practice.

I was fortunate enough to meet the man once. He stayed in the hotel I was working in when he did his tour, and I got to serve him and some of his monks dinner for a whole week!

"Lots of beeping. And shaking and tinfoil." Chelly

"Are you sure it's a genuine test and not a robot heroin addict?" Cantus

---set free by the rather lovely FireTom--- --(right arm owned by Fyre)--

As we know religions are mutaly exclusive if one is right the rest are wrong they can't all be right.

Umm, I think the teachings of the Dalai Lama may disagree with you there.....but he'll respect that if it's your belief....

yer very true buddism is kinda an execption it been a very sensable religion i was going to exculude buddism but in the end there are still afew conflicts like rencarnation vs the afterlife which are mutaly exclusive. though the lack of a god in buddism does put them in a grey area for the whole thing

is probly safter just to exclude buddists from the whole thing as they just complicate matters

Posted:5th Dec 2006Oh, it's not very clear what that's about is it? It's not very on topic, but it's about http://www.talkorigins.org/- a site that debunks creationists 'science'.

"Talk.Origins is an archive with thousands of pages exposing creationist pseudoscience. Rather mysteriously, Google pulled the plug on its search engine, giving only the vague reason: 'No pages from your site are currently included in Google's index due to violations of the webmaster guidelines.' This was apparently triggered by a recent cracking of the site that added 'hidden links to non-topical sites,' but Google won't say just what the violations were. Talk.Origins webmaster Wesley R. Elsberry believes that this Google policy harms honest webmasters."